Top Law Schools

Subject line is pretty eself-xplanatory. I'm interested to also know if the admitted student was a URM or non-URM...

Please share!

Susan_Walid wrote:Subject line is pretty eself-xplanatory. I'm interested to also know if the admitted student was a URM or non-URM...

Please share!

Are you talking about T1 and T2?

Because you can get into some super shitty TTTT's with terrible scores.

the answer is eself-xplanatory

Yes, T1 and T2's

all non-URMs, GPA 3.7-3.9

Harvard: 158
Penn: 155
Duke: 151


Source 1: eself
Source 2: -xplanatory
Source 3: fake

nkp007 wrote:all non-URMs, GPA 3.7-3.9

Harvard: 158
Penn: 155
Duke: 151


Source 1: eself
Source 2: -xplanatory

how? softs?

nkp007 wrote:all non-URMs, GPA 3.7-3.9

Harvard: 158
Penn: 155
Duke: 151


Source 1: eself
Source 2: -xplanatory

I have never understood this kind of thing. How does that happen? I mean coulod your softs be so good they think that you will do well in law school even though you either suck at taking tests or just aren't intelligent? Or is it more people who had connections or parents whos donations were large enough to get any score in?

There's going to be a lot of butthurt in this thread.

AssumptionRequired wrote:

nkp007 wrote:all non-URMs, GPA 3.7-3.9

Harvard: 158
Penn: 155
Duke: 151


Source 1: eself
Source 2: -xplanatory

I have never understood this kind of thing. How does that happen? I mean coulod your softs be so good they think that you will do well in law school even though you either suck at taking tests or just aren't intelligent? Or is it more people who had connections or parents whos donations were large enough to get any score in?

If you think either one of those things is reflected by how well you do on the LSAT... then YOU sir, are not intelligent.

There is a lawyer at my (V25) firm that got into Berkeley with a 155. At least I'm pretty sure it was that. She said her highest PRACTICE LSAT was only a 160. I'm not quite sure how she got in. She doesn't look like a URM, but it's possible she is multi-ethnic, since according to our company Web site, she was part of an African-American journal in law school.

Anyways, she claims that the CA Bar was much, MUCH harder to pass than the LSAT. I wonder if that just means it's much, MUCH harder to pass that bar than get a 155....

MTBike wrote:

AssumptionRequired wrote:
I have never understood this kind of thing. How does that happen? I mean coulod your softs be so good they think that you will do well in law school even though you either suck at taking tests or just aren't intelligent? Or is it more people who had connections or parents whos donations were large enough to get any score in?

If you think either one of those things is determined by how well you do on the LSAT... then YOU sir, are not intelligent.

Do you think that the LSAT isn't a test?

laxbrah420 wrote:

MTBike wrote:

AssumptionRequired wrote:
I have never understood this kind of thing. How does that happen? I mean coulod your softs be so good they think that you will do well in law school even though you either suck at taking tests or just aren't intelligent? Or is it more people who had connections or parents whos donations were large enough to get any score in?

If you think either one of those things is determined by how well you do on the LSAT... then YOU sir, are not intelligent.

Do you think that the LSAT isn't a test?

He created a blatant false dichotomy

You're the guy who confused determine from predict

What's the other option? Great at taking tests but suck only specifically at the LSAT?

laxbrah420 wrote:You're the guy who confused determine from predict

I corrected that seconds after your first post... brah

Ludovico Technique wrote:What's the other option? Great at taking tests but suck only specifically at the LSAT?

You're right... if you do poorly on the LSAT, you are fucking retarded.

MTBike wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:What's the other option? Great at taking tests but suck only specifically at the LSAT?

You're right... if you do poorly at the LSAT, you are fucking retarded.

Again, I'm thinking that you don't fully understand the difference between predicting ability and determining success, despite having edited your initially retarded post.

laxbrah420 wrote:

MTBike wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:What's the other option? Great at taking tests but suck only specifically at the LSAT?

You're right... if you do poorly at the LSAT, you are fucking retarded.

Again, I'm thinking that you don't fully understand the difference between predicting ability and determining success, despite having edited your initially retarded post.

Don't take this on your own bullshit tangent... I was simply calling him out on his false dichotomy, that is it. Nothing more. Dont make it anything more, no matter how much you would like to start a flame war about stupid shit. Have nothing better to do?

MTBike wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:What's the other option? Great at taking tests but suck only specifically at the LSAT?

You're right... if you do poorly on the LSAT, you are fucking retarded.

You changed your original post to mine. I always love when people look incredibly stupid trying to call someon else stupid.

If the bolded is what you got from all this, you must have done poorly on the LSAT. I didnt say you were stupid. There is a chance you just are not good at standardized tests. But if it doesnt measure being good at taking standardized tests and it doesnt measure intelligence................ wtf does it measure?

MTBike wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:What's the other option? Great at taking tests but suck only specifically at the LSAT?

You're right... if you do poorly on the LSAT, you are fucking retarded.

Huh? I never said you're stupid if you do poorly on the LSAT, but I do think it means you're bad at taking tests.

Maybe he thinks by tests you were referring to tests beyond merely the scope of standardized tests?
As in, you created a false dichotomy because while you may be bad at taking standardized tests, you could be really good at blood tests or tests of endurance?

I also think it's awesome that I got accused of trying to flame despite the fact that this MTBike brah decided to call AR unintelligent unprovoked

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.

Not doing well on the lsat (a ridiculously learnable test) is definitely indicative of poor forethought and planning. I would count these as significant indicators of intelligence.